In section five of this nice exposition of moment generating functions, we prove the following theorem:
Take an i.i.d sequence of random variables $(X_n:\Omega\to\Bbb R)_{n\in\Bbb N}$ whose common cumulant generating function $\Lambda$ is finite in a neighbourhood of the origin (the value $+\infty$ is permitted in general). Let $X:=X_1$.
Define $\Lambda^\ast$ to be the "Fenchel-Legendre transform" of $\Lambda$: $$\Lambda^\ast:\Bbb R\to\overline{\Bbb R},\,x\mapsto\sup_{t\in\Bbb R}(x\cdot t-\Lambda(t))$$And define for every $n\in\Bbb N$ the empirical means: $$Y_n:=\frac{1}{n}\sum_{j=1}^nX_j:\Omega\to\Bbb R$$
If $\alpha>\mathbb{E}(X)$ and $\mathrm{Pr}(X>\alpha)>0$ then $0<\Lambda^\ast(\alpha)<\infty$ and we get the asymptotics of the "large deviations": $$\frac{1}{n}\ln\mathrm{Pr}(Y_n>\alpha)\overset{n\to\infty}{\longrightarrow}-\Lambda^\ast(\alpha)=\inf_{t>0}(\Lambda(t)-\alpha\cdot t)$$With convergence from below.
The proof is - to me - a fairly complex and delicate application of probability theory. I don't yet know enough to follow it all the way through. I wanted to "see it in action" so I explicitly calculated $\Lambda^\ast$ for the Poisson distribution.
Let's fix some $\lambda>0$. If we take $(X_n)_n$ which follow the Poisson distribution with parameter $\lambda$, it is easy to check that $\Lambda(t)=\lambda(e^t-1)$ for all $t$. Some basic calculus optimisation will find: $$\Lambda^\ast(\alpha)=\lambda+\alpha(\ln(\alpha\cdot\lambda^{-1})-1)$$Whenever $\alpha>\lambda$.
So the theorem predicts that: $$\lim_{n\to\infty}\frac{1}{n}\ln\left(\sum_{m>n\alpha}\frac{(n\lambda)^m}{m!}e^{-n\lambda}\right)=-\lambda+\alpha(1-\ln(\alpha\cdot\lambda^{-1}))$$A little rearranging brings that to: $$\tag{$\ast$}\forall\,\,0<\lambda<\alpha:\quad\quad\quad\lim_{n\to\infty}\frac{1}{n}\ln\left(\sum_{m>n\alpha}\frac{(n\lambda)^m}{m!}\right)=\alpha(1-\ln(\alpha\cdot\lambda^{-1}))$$
Which seems highly nontrivial to do by other means. I am very curious to see whether or not anyone on the site has the expertise to supply a "real analytic" proof of this identity. I know that the probabilistic proof is just a real analytic proof with a particular flavour, but I mean to ask if there are other ways of doing this which aren't purely motivated by ideas from probability or measure theory (the proof seems to involve a "change-of-measure" trick, which is a new one on me). Or, if this special Poisson case admits a simpler probabilistic proof, that would be interesting to see too.
I think this special case is an interesting problem. Since I don't fully understand the proof I've already seen, I reckon that verifying $(\ast)$ is way above my paygrade. I hope to learn from your answers :)
Just one thing I can helpfully observe:
By the Stolz-Cesaro theorem, it would suffice to show that (although I do not know if this is true): $$\lim_{n\to\infty}\frac{\sum_{m>(n+1)\alpha}\frac{((n+1)\lambda)^m}{m!}}{\sum_{m>n\alpha}\frac{(n\lambda)^m}{m!}}=\left(\frac{\lambda e}{\alpha}\right)^\alpha$$
Oh, and a related cool (I think) expression can be deduced by applying the same technique to a sequence of binomial variable variables with parameters $n,1/2$:
If $n\in\Bbb N$ and $\frac{n}{2}<\alpha<n$ then: $$\lim_{m\to\infty}\frac{1}{m}\ln\left(\sum_{k>m\alpha}\binom{mn}{k}\right)=n\ln n-\alpha\ln\alpha-(n-\alpha)\ln(n-\alpha)$$
More generally, if $0<p<1$, $n\in\Bbb N$ and $np<\alpha<n$: $$\lim_{m\to\infty}\frac{1}{m}\ln\left(\sum_{k>m\alpha}\binom{mn}{k}\left(\frac{p}{1-p}\right)^k\right)=\alpha\ln\left(\frac{p}{1-p}\right)+n\ln n-\alpha\ln\alpha-(n-\alpha)\ln(n-\alpha)$$
This also seems quite nontrivial without this “master theorem”. I would be equally interested to see a proof of that by other means.